| Jump to bottom |
Nudists Awake, Salute the Happy Morn !!!
Morning Dillon -
You enquired about my clothing - an important matter indeed.
As you probably know, in London we all sit around naked, use the Internet naked, go to work naked, and sleep in bed naked.
For some reason you assumed we all wore clothes.
Why?
Using your simplistic 'reasoning' concerning proof of anything, you may have become aware that there's no evidence that anyone you've crossed words with on this Forum exists, since you have only a message on your computer screen to suggest they do.
For instance have you ever met and checked out Deacon?
Using your 'logic' you cannot just accept that Elroy met Deaky and discovered he was real, with nine chilren.
You once wrote:
'Here is another quality source for information on flu vaccines.
It takes a minute or two to start up. Please be patient.
Dr. Paul Yanick, American Academy of Quantum Medicine
http://www.aaqm.org/20091026webinar.htm
What made you believe the person you were addressing on the Forum existed, or that the video of Dr. Paul Yanick, American Academy of Quantum Medicine, meant that Dr Yanick was alive and kicking?
No evidence, for it, by your method of deduction - or quasi thinking about the matter.
Which, happiy, brings us back to that Empty Tomb.
You've no evidence it was empty. You've read about it, and accepted that it was empty, depending on which version you bothered to read about.
I mean, look at this:
Mark 16:5 - The women enter the tomb and meet one young man in there.
Matthew 28:2 - An angel arrives during an earthquake, rolls away the stone, and sits on it outside. Pilate's guards are also there.
Luke 24:2-4 - The women enter the tomb and two men suddenly appear â€" it's not clear if they are inside or outside.
John 20:12 - The women do not enter the tomb, but there are two angels (or men) sitting inside.
Which version do you prefer to accept on trust?
On your very sensible reasoning, similar to Thomas, you can accept none of them.
Which leads to the two other matters you take on trust.
The tomb's stone was rolled back.
If you accept that, without the proof you require, you take on trust that this was necessary for JC to come out.
However, since you also accept for some reason that he was sort of 'ethereal', this stone rolling is entirely unnecessary.
Then there's the shroud problem. You accept, without the proof you require, that his shroud was left inside, suggesting he had risen from the dead. Now you're in really deep trouble. You've accepted all this on trust, without a shred of the evidence you ask of me, concerning my apparel.
So, to the matter of the alleged risen christ's apparel. He must have been naked as well, like all of us in London.
However, you assume he was clothed. (Most people agree with that.)
Where did he get his clothes from? How could he walk barefoot to Emmaus, with crucifixion wounds in his feet, without sandals? And if he had sandals where did they come from?
You apparently however accept on trust that his resurrected body was different from his physical body. It was no longer subject to the same laws of nature. He could transcend locked doors, and yet he could still be touched and he could eat, and go through walls, like Deaky believes people can in space (heaven).
Dillon you face a real problem with your reasoning. It's more probable that I disobeyed the British custom of sitting around naked - and that I, at least had trousers on, when I allegedly addressed you, stating that you were raving again - indeed, as usual.
| Jump to top |
